January 27, 2010

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Obama is getting a lot of criticism. But is Alito? Alito didn't yell out his words, the way Joe Wilson did last year, and "not true" is mellower than "you lie." One expects such rigid decorum from the Justices on these occasions that it's really striking when a Justice is anything other than a statue of a Justice. I think that if they knew they were going to have to listen to that kind of in-your-face disrespect, they wouldn't have done the President the honor of sitting there, providing the scenery. But they were there, and I'm not going to criticize Alito for moving his lips and letting us see a silent defense of the judicial branch of government.

I'm reminded of all those articles, back at the time of Alito's confirmation, that said that Alito was less "polished" than John Roberts:

[H]e will never be as polished and camera-ready as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at his own hearings a few months ago.

"He is not going to be the well-manicured nominee," said one participant in the rehearsals, known as murder boards, at which Republican lawyers have played the roles of interrogating senators. "That is not to say it is going to be worse. It is just going to be different."...

But two of Judge Alito's supporters who participated in the murder boards... said they emerged convinced that his demeanor was a political asset because it gave him an Everyman appeal.

"He will have a couple hairs out of place," one participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like he is from New Jersey, because he is. That is a very useful look, because it is a natural look....

What is more, this participant said, Judge Alito displayed a "street smart" New Jerseyan's willingness to talk back to his questioners....

Yeah. It was different. He came from New Jersey, he looked natural, and he was willing to talk back. Silently. But we heard it. Good.

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.

Of course he said nothing about unions- evil special interests- spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spend without limits in our elections. Instead of spending their members dues monies on providing health care insurance.

Obama sometimes appears actually dangerous to me. I do believe he is so utterly convinced of the superiority of his own views that he is actually anti-democracy, as when he describes voters as bitter and clinging to their guns and religion, or when he says that it would be mere politics to bow to the will of the voters against a federal takeover of health care. The sooenr his power is even more shrply constrained, the better.

Supreme Court justices usually make for an awkward sight at the State of the Union speech, because they sit stony-faced and never clap or cheer. Some members of the court dislike the exercise so much that they never attend. Justice Sotomayor’s predecessor, David H. Souter, never did. For several years, Justice Breyer attended alone.

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

Obama's arrogance is breathtaking. He's an attorney and surely knows better than to subject the Court to such a blatant show of disrespect. He may never have to appear before the Justices but his Solicitor General does. Whatever criticism may come Alito's way --and in my opinion there shouldn't be any-- he can comfort himself with the thought that he will be sitting on the Court long after Obama has left office.

And he was wrong on the law. I guess it's a good thing he never actually practiced.

Obama continues to divide, and to pile up his enemies out of an arrogance that seems to show he REALLY, REALLY thinks he is the Black Messiah.

Diss the bitter clingers, cops, small business, several of our allies. Then pile on his special favors for healthcare. A war on the CIA. Cut National Security and the FBI in favor of leftist Justice Dept lawyers. Now add SCOTUS on to his Nixonian "enemies list". And on, and on.

(1) Obama is willing to grant foreign unlawful combatants the full rights of American citizens, so naturally he likewise thinks that, under Citizens United v. FEC, foreign corporations will be granted the full rights of American corporations.

(2) He raised an ungodly amount of unlawful foreign money during the 2008 campaign. The irony is that, while McCain who kept the gentlemen's agreement, took public funding, and is now in the midst of an audit, Obama's 2008 campaign financials have never been thoroughly investigated and the extent of his duplicity will never fully be known.

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds [of] Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

"Blame Bush. Blame the banks. I don't quit. Blame rich folks. Jobs for everyone. Blame Wall Street. I made history by stopping the greatest disaster since the Great Depression. Blame banks. We must work together- Kumbayah. Blame hedge funds. Bipartisanship. Blame Bush. Common sense is a new idea. Blame... oh hell, blame anyone who has cash in their pocket and the SCOTUS.

Oh... no! When there's governing to be done, he's not being deferential enough to the minority! Oh, no! Let's pretend the bully pulpit should be a showcase for a shrinking violet!

Anyway, since some people like firing sneak attacks behind others' backs in order to prevent them from responding adequately (sound familiar?), and because the topic came up, here's what a respected constitutional scholar has to say about the ruling:

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out that "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."

I took the dog out for a walk. It is like ten degrees here. I thought i heard crickets. Wrong. It was people hitting remotes trying to get something other than that religious comedy program and reality show called SOTU D.C.

Except Obama is exactly right. There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

But Ann is a law professor, so perhaps it is asking a bit much for her to know something about the law. . .

I love that Ritmo is holding court here about the Supremes when he proved just the other day that he doesn't actually no anything that rises to the level of jack shit about the Court or its august members.

Laurence Tribe's understanding of the fact that corporations are not formed so that employees can have a forum for pursuing the broader expression of their political beliefs is a viewpoint worth airing here. And in any place that can tolerate hearing such a viewpoint or any other realistic refutation of the narrowly accepted wisdom so poorly explicated on the matter here.

If nothing else, his reputation demands it. If I'm to show respect based on the age and stature of a justice, then the same can be done for a constitutional law scholar who manages to credibly explain his own reasoning.

it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."

Except Obama is exactly right. There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

There is nothing stopping a, say European Labor Union, from establishing an entity here and bankrolling a campaign against a politician who supports unions paying health insurance for their members.

Also, I'm not sure Tribe runs a blog site where he would agitate against dissenters by waiting until they are out of town for two days to write blog posts about them and what they supposedly think, or what principles they supposedly support (of course, hypocritically). It's more fun to see how an unprepared opposition handles it.

So I became lax in my attacks on the positions on this blog. Can anyone blame me?

Perhaps, Ritmo, you should spend less time on your -- no doubt -- exhaustive study of Tribe's books and articles in scholarly journals, and just a few minutes on the basic constitution of the Court and a remedial, junior high understanding of the jurisprudence of its members.

That way, for example, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of not knowing that Stevens is an almost always leftist nut.

If you look closely at Alito, it's not that he mouths "Not true." But it's his head shake, the inside tongue licking of his mouth, the sucking at the teeth before he mouths those words. He's fucking pissed. He's pissed because he was there, in the chamber and in his office, with all of his clerks helping him while he pondered his decision all the while this arrogant, egotistical twat at the podium is lifting and wagging his finger like a belligerent prig setting forth on lecturing the justices on their decisions. All the while, the leftist douche brigade is standing and applauding all around them at this morons utterances clapping their unyielding and undying fealty to this hapless buffoon.

Look at the video again and look at the women to the right side of the screen looking directly at the justices while this is going on and you can see the dismay in her face as she is looking for a reaction on the stony faces staring at the Incompetent-in-Chief. This is telling of the tone that this half-wit has set. Obama, the great lecturer on judiciousness and justice.

Very defensive of mine (and Tribe's) remedial understanding of (and point regarding) the basic purpose of corporations there, Machos. And very interested in changing the subject, it seems. I wonder why?

You don't have to be particularly civil here. You just can't demonstrate that you don't what the fuck you are talking about while trying to score cheap political points against people you think you disagree with.

I say think you disagree with because you and I both know you haven't read the opinion, or even a decent synopsis of it.

You cannot pwn someone by simply taking advantage of their absence and inability to respond to your attack. That is called being wimpy. It's called sniping.

Of course, you seem to be a fan of it.

Can I go to bed now, or should I fear that you will take advantage of any absence on my part as your best opportunity to attack me unhindered?

Whiny cunt alert!!! If this is too much for you, I'm sure you can find the special ed blogs elsewhere on the interwebs. You shouldn't have to fear being taken advantage of if your self-professed (un)intellect is capable of picking up the conversation where you left off. Want a wipey? A wet-nap, maybe a douche to clean up after your vaginal discharge of sand, perhaps?

Alito looks pissed but does anyone look more like she wishes she were anywhere else on earth than Sotomayer does? She looks a bit like she's doing the old "sleep while sitting up in class" thing coupled with the "oh, gawd, it's too hot in here, I'm gonna puke" thing.

Anyone else here remember that Obama lectured on Consitutional law? Some people like to say he was a Consitutional law professor.

I think he needs to move on to a higher calling. He needs to fix the Supreme Court like he fixed the economy, and GM and the banks and Wall Street and GITMO and the oceans and the Cambridge police department ... and everything he has or plans on fixing.

If not now, then before the end of his first and only term, how about he appoint himself to the Supreme Court?

Is this the type of civility that reflects well on the blog? Is this the sort of attack that, if launched by a liberal, would be seen as "typical"? As "unhinged"?

[rolleyes] If you are even going to bother to characterize this 'attack' on you as unhinged, then I suggest that simply turn off your internet, sit in a corner, and suck your thumb. This isn't the place for you. Your faux indignity is showing.

Laurence Tribe gets to the obvious heart of the matter. And you can't refute what he said or why contending with it would affect the ruling and reasoning supporting it according to the only people here who were willing to explain why they did.

In the meantime, Peter Bella advises against arguing with idiots because they supposedly, magically make you idiotic. This after he declared the party that loves blacks to remain poor is the Democrats. Guess Barack Obama never got the memo.

Bad arguing all around. At least I know the difference between goofing around and making a serious point. And I'm even capable of retaining that distinction on my own part. Unlike some.

Laurence Tribe gets to the obvious heart of the matter. And you can't refute what he said or why contending with it would affect the ruling and reasoning supporting it according to the only people here who were willing to explain why they did.

In the meantime, Peter Bella advises against arguing with idiots because they supposedly, magically make you idiotic. This after he declared the party that loves blacks to remain poor is the Democrats. Guess Barack Obama never got the memo.

Bad arguing all around. At least I know the difference between goofing around and making a serious point. And I'm even capable of retaining that distinction on my own part. Unlike some.

Ritmo -- Any person who knows anything about Constitutional law can predict how most members of the Supreme Court will come down on a given topic. If you know anything at all about the subject, you know that Stevens will vote leftishly four of five times. The other time, he'll write a strange concurrence or dissent that is completely tangential to the issue at hand.

You have demonstrated that you don't even know what people in their first semester of law school and people with a passing knowledge of current Constitutional law understand intuitively.

It is embarrassingly laughable for you now to go on about Laurence Tribe as if you know anything at all about the man or his scholarship.

Hey Ritmo,I witnessed the alleged War on Poverty. It was a war on poor people. It was instituted by a Democrat- Lyndon Baines Johnson. I saw the devastation of whole communities because of the "Great Society". I picked up the pieces.

You want to know why so many Black men are in prison? I put them there. But it was the Democrats fault. They kept them poor and starving. Crime was a way of life to survive and still is. The Democrats destroyed the Black middle class in America and created a slave plantation of welfare and housing projects.

Would you like to know what that great Democrat LBJ said after he signed the bill for his bullshit Great Society?

"I will have the niggers voting Democrat in perpetuity." The Democrats kept poor people poor. There was never a redistribution of wealth and there will never be.

Why is it laughable for me to quote Tribe? Is his quote not pertinent to the purpose of a corporation and understanding its relation to how people choose to freely associate or speak their views?

I am not a lawyer and I did not go to law school. I am in a different profession. I do, however, closely know several successful lawyers. They seem to lack your arrogance on when it comes to how people should relate to how much they should be required to know about the way the law governs their lives before opining on it. Why go on about the law as if its grand majesty should be some kind of mystery to make its workings too obscure to the people that have to abide by it for them to discuss it or at least contribute to that discussion?

I don't have to have an intimate familiarity with legal theory to understand and help contribute some basic, pertinent ideas to the relations between expression, elections and modern commerce in a democracy. Or should I first donate millions to a Saudi think-tank and have them publish my opinion, and provide it with the necessary legalistic trimmings to spruce it up, before you take it seriously?

Except Obama is exactly right. There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

Then, again, if you turn off credit card verification, you can collect as many foreign campaign contributions as you want. We will never know how much of all that money contributed to President Obama's campaign was foreign for that reason.

Try this: if you are too stupid to know how Stevens votes and too lazy to bother to look it up before spouting foolishly, you have no business invoking anything Laurence Tribe says including "and" and "the."

Just stop, dude. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh wow. A less than admirable quote by LBJ. I suppose this means his passage of civil rights is meaningless. I suppose he now, however many decades later, speaks to a party that he belonged to. How wonderful to live in the land that experiences no passage of time and no change. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all attitudes always remained fixed in the population and what was common at one point would never be condemned later?

And regarding the cheap link on Tribe's transgressions, I found this:

"At the same time, I am gratified that the University's inquiry found no basis for accusations of dishonesty or of intellectual theft."

Just stop, dude. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

He can't stop now. The hole has been dug and his ego is incapable of saying, "Stop digging, you fool!!!" this will go on and on. If you think this is bad, you should see the stuff that goes on in usenet.

Hey Ritmo,Your pal Tribe is not exactly objective in his meandering opinions. The President was one of his students. "The best student I ever had." Tribe is also a supporter of various liberal causes- not htat there is anything wrong with that- and formed an organization to counter the Federalist Society.

Maybe next time you can find a more objective Constitutional Law Professor to support your specious arguments. You know, someone who does not have a personal involvement with the subject at hand.

Just stop, dude. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Argumentum ad verecundiam, eh?

I'll take this as your best argument for defending the ridiculous notion that corporations do exist so that their employees can expect to have an amplified, disproportionate effect on political speech, then.

Ritmo -- I have made no argument about the ruling. I am arguing that you demonstrated that you knew nothing about the ruling, had not read the opinion, and knew absolutely less than zero about the justices who created the opinion and at least one dissent.

You are the undergraduate who does not do the basic reading. Yet instead of shutting up like a person who has dignity and a healthy sense of shame, you continue to spout despite the fact that your lack of knowledge has been revealed to the world.

The wonderful thing about not having an intense hatred of high school civics is that you don't have to hate non-lawyers for speaking out about how they feel their rights have been misinterpreted. And you also get to learn that there should probably be a damn good, non-partisan reason for going against a century of stare decisis.

But I forgot. All my ignorance makes you feel insecure. I guess that's why instead of offering an actual, simple rebuttal, or any real argument of which to speak, you just said "You're stupid! I know more than you!"

Ritmo, you seem to have left out the unions. The decision applies to them as well. Now they can also spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing elections and legislation. They can spend that money on bullshit instead of health care insurance for their members.

Can't imagine why Obama thought it was a good idea to pick a fight with the Supreme Court in the first place, let alone with a weak charge to which he himself is vulnerable (given the credit card verification issue from last year.) Still not sure why people think this guy is so smart.

But more importantly, this thread had a Beldar sighting! That's far more cheering to me than anything this jerk said tonight.

...Says the guy who keeps throwing out Latin terms to impress everyone.

Dude, have knowledge before you argue. It's just basic common courtesy.

Further, you can accuse the more conservative justices of co-opting a senile Stevens, then get pwned by Althouse very deliberately and forcefully, then expect to be taken seriously on the exact same topic.

You can not shame me for my lack of knowledge on something when you contribute absolutely no knowledge, zip, zilch, zero to the conversation regarding what such knowledge would inform. And at 5-4, such a conversation surely exists, as you must know. And as a citizen, I have every right to expect that someone who feels so strongly about my rights, and who yet has the stunning arrogance to declare that he knows my rights better than I do, should fucking explain himself when he arrogates to me regarding that conversation.

Regardless of whether he has the sack to form an opinion on it or not.

So let me get this straight: the left thinks it's a wonderful thing when US judges incorporate foreign legal doctrines or decisions to shape or to influence US judicial decisions, but when the left thinks that the judicial branch might allow foreign businesses to influence electoral politics, it's time to launch a populist crusade against those f'rners and that durned bunch of right wing internationalists on the Supreme Court.

I don't see myself once arguing about how it would be such an incredible injustice if unions weren't contributing either. Their purpose is to facilitate the ability to strike, remember? Just like a corporation's purpose is to make money.

I did learn something. Apart from the many fields of study (other than law) in which I could school your ass, I learned that people don't sign up to work for a corporation in order to freely associate as a means of facilitating their political speech.

I also learned basic logic and the Latin terminology it uses. Everyone who goes to college should. Sorry if that makes you feel insecure in your lawyering on behalf of snubbing my democratic rights.

Freedom, liberty, rights, and simple addition. Great stuff. Not sure why they need to subtract from the analysis on corruption, money and conflict of interest when one is representing constituents regardless of their access to influence. I'm sure you'll explain that one to me, though. Or maybe not.

I know all the Republican bloggers (the ones who support torture, for example) tell me I shouldn't worry about this Supreme Court ruling. But Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who was succeeded by Alito, is speaking out against it and is saying this ruling will further corrupt state judicial elections. In my state of Ohio, all our judges, on up to the Ohio Supreme court, are elected, and some of those elections have already been obscenely corrupted by money.

Now, I suppose we could change the way we select our judges in states like Ohio. But I don't see that happening. So be it. Just don't tell me I'm supposed to have so much respect for the judiciary when the judiciary in my state will increasingly be bought.

And I felt a lot better with a fine justice on the court like O'Connor than with this Alito character. Who knows what long-established precedents Alito is willing to defy in activist fashion to turn America upside-down? I'm pretty sure he'd like to over-rule abortion rights, for one.

BTW, the best part of Obama's speech was at the beginning, when he reminded the thickos that when he took office America was on the brink of total economic collapse. Somehow bloggers like Professor Althouse don't seem to get that very simple fact of very recent history.

Obama stepped into quite a mess a year ago and it's laughable that the right-wing bloggers are already declaring him the worst pez ever because he couldn't magically make all the problems he inherited go away in record time. We have a country with a crumbling infrastructure where everything seems to be broken or falling the fuck apart, and we nearly found ourselves in a full on economic depression. In foreign policy, Obama took over from a fuck-up who let bin Laden escape at the battle of Tora Bora. Etc.

Larry said...Except Obama is exactly right. There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

Revenant said... There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

There never has been anything stopping Saudi Arabia from bankrolling a political campaign in the United States. Yet they've never been able to do so. Curious, no?One might almost think that the American people aren't actually the mindless sheep that the left thinks them to be.

The only group that has loyalty to a foreign country's interests over ours - that actively bankroll US political funds that oppose a politician that puts America's interest over theirs is the Israel Lobby.They get away with it, because past money well handed-out exempted AIPAC from the registered foreign lobbyist's Act.

There are other foreign lobbies that spread the money behind closed doors that sell out the US worker for foreign or wealthy American fatcats. But they do it legally and do not use AIPAC tactics. Just money quietly handed out. The China Lobby, the Agribiz and Bank-Housing lobby's interest in cheap illegal Mexican laborover "non-union" US labor. The H-1B Indian Lobby.

Unlikely any other nation would get away with Open meddling in American elections. The Zionists got away with it exerting "special victimhood" - but the days of that victimhood immunity are dwindling fast.

Methadras is like, seven levels of intelligence below the most ignorant participant to this conversation. I suppose I shouldn't have learned about logical fallacies, now. Point taken, Methadras!

BTW, Machos is ahead of you. Do try to keep up. Try focusing your insults of me on the stuff that matters.

Oh, I'm just insulting you for the sheer sake of the enjoyment of it. It really isn't all that difficult to best you in any type of mental sport at all. You are quite an intellectual inferior to many a people that commentate on this blog. Your phony intellectual transparency notwithstanding, I'm much smarter than you. I don't normally say that to people, but since you've been waving your little intellectual pee-pee around here, I thought I'd just step on it.

But please. Do droll on. Watching your ego make you incapable of stopping this charade leaves me with indifference to your plight, but it is telling. I know a couple of people like you. Infatuated with themselves and what they think they know because they've heard it somewhere or they've read it somewhere, all the while the basest of laymen the pretend to exude expertise. Yes, I know people like you.

Unions do not exist to strike. What absurd tripe. Unions exist to improve the working conditions and the material and social conditions of their members.

Let's not forget the power of collective bargaining. At this stage alone, unions are utterly useless now. These same characteristics that a union possesses are codified into any number of legal statues in labor, safety, health, equal opportunity. So all they have left is collective bargaining and the protective power of the labor strike. Unions are a dinosaur who's time has come. Yes, they had their purpose and they had their uses and their effects on law that protect working people is profound, but as an associative tool, needless.

Unions now are nothing more than a political tool. State and federal employee unions even more so. I'd like to see them turned to ash. There is no longer a justification for their existence.

Actually there is another more important reason unions exist. To enrich their leadership through dues and then that leadership either courts or ingratiates itself to the body politic not unlike the high dollar escort services they've become.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was **not** at issue in the case."

Ann said: One expects such rigid decorum from the Justices on these occasions that it's really striking when a Justice is anything other than a statue of a Justice.

Randy Barnett said: In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

I'm with Barnett on this one. Alito was not disrespectful to the president.

I dont particularly care if POTUS comes down on SCOTUS--I dont think, however, the state of the union speech is the appropriate forum for that bit of demogogery.

The Justices cannot respond (Alito excepted), the President clearly does not know the law, or more likely is misrepresenting it, and the bottom line is it makes the president look like the idiot is.The president is Huey Long in blackface.

First, I think the president showed no class at that moment. As for alito, I think he struck the right balance. He registered his disagreement without interrupting. I think the fact he didn’t interrupt is what separates him from that guy who shouted “you lie.”

Synova

> "With all deference" is the same thing as adding "bless his heart" when you're going to trash someone.

I have long said that every time you see a person say “with all due respect” you can accurately replace it with the words “you idiot.” Stargate SG-1 was a particularly bad offender in that respect. Try it. “With all due respect, if we try that we will get killed.”

> Obama was so blame good in his speech, Matthews totally forgot he was a black dude.

I don’t pick on Matthews for forgetting his skin color. I am annoyed that apparently the rest of the time he is constantly thinking of Obama’s color. That’s the problem, not the fact he managed to overcome it for a while. Really, I don’t know what world he lives in that he is constantly noticing people’s color and never forgetting.

And that is what makes it all stupid. Above all else, supreme court justices are interested in their institution. An attack on the supreme court brings liberals and conservatives on the court together. Its sort of like how two brothers might constantly bicker, but if someone outside the family threatens one of them, they both join forces and kick the guy’s behind.

Lucid

> Obama sometimes appears actually dangerous to me.

You said a mouthful. Some of what he says and does suggests a Chavez agenda. I think in truth he just doesn’t realize how creepy he can be.

Fen

> We now know that Joe Wilson was right. Obama was lying back then about illegals not getting coverage.

He lied on an almost pathological level last night. It was really stunning.

Ritmo said (at 1:30): "...I learned that people don't sign up to work for a corporation in order to freely associate as a means of facilitating their political speech."

Ritmo, your ideology (exemplified by your focus on “the workers” with no apparent consideration of corporate owners) is blinding you to the obvious. Corporations do not exist to provide employment to “the workers,” nor do they exist to provide their voice. Rather, corporations exist to create profits for their owners. Corporate speech is in the owners’ interest, not employees’ (though they are obviously not unrelated).

Are business owners’ First Amendment rights suspended because they freely associate (in the form of corporations ) to pursue a profit?

> Except Obama is exactly right. There is nothing stopping Saudi Arabia from establishing a corporate entity in the United States and bankrolling a campaign against any politician who supports a clean air agenda.

And prior to that decision, what stopped them from doing that? all they would have to do is buy a TV station and call it, let’s say, AL JAZEERA. Admittedly their bias is pro-terror, but fwiw.

There was never a ban on corporate speech—only certain corporate speakers.

By the way, exit question. why is it that the FEC thought “Fahrenheit 9-11” was kosher, but “Hillery: the movie” was verboten?

Ritmo

> Laurence Tribe's understanding of the fact that corporations are not formed so that employees can have a forum for pursuing the broader expression of their political beliefs is a viewpoint worth airing here.

Except that not only isn’t true of all corporations, it isn’t even true of the corporation in Citizens United. CU does nothing but produce these kinds of political documentary.

What the FEC did, shutting down “Hillary: The Movie” was inexcusable. But liberals don’t want to talk about the actual facts of the actual case, because they know that the moment we mention the facts, their arguments start to ring hollow.

> Laurence Tribe gets to the obvious heart of the matter.

No, in fact, all of the liberal critics of this decision miss the heart of the matter. Usually their whine is “corporations are bad, so they will say bad things. So we have to silence them.” These people fundamentally don’t understand what constitutionalism is about. Liberals love to quote Marshall saying, “this is a constitution we are expounding” but fail to understand what it means. What it means is that the constitution sets certain goals that the Federal Government may pursue, and certain goals it may not pursue. When a goal is forbidden to the government, then it is forbidden by any means.

Justice Jackson wrote, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics.” That is the goal that congress may not pursue, and the critics of this decision explicitly want to pursue. You might think corporations are bad. It might be orthodox to you. But you are not allowed to force that orthodoxy on anyone else.

But we now have the amazing spectacle of a liberal intelligencia that agrees that the constitution allows the American Nazi Party to march through communities full of holocaust survivors, and for men to burn the flag in the presence of patriots, but nonetheless believes that speech by Exxon should be brutally suppressed. How did we get to a point where liberals think the Nazis have more rights than Exxon?

What's amazing is that some posters here are worried about foreign influence in our elections through corporations (which is BS), but are not worried that the Ineligible POTUS making the speech violates the national security provision of A2S1C4,5. Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain, owing allegiance through his father's Kenyan citizenship (British at the time). He is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

Has Bradley Smith not heard of Sony Pictures? Today's multinational corporations mean many time American interests and foreign entities are one and the same. Even years ago, growing up in the Midwest, we shopped at a British-owned department store, ate British-owned fast food, and even popped British-owned dinner rolls into the oven on the most American of holidays, Thanksgiving. Further, Brits and Dutch owned two gas station chains.

As a college senior, I applied for work at local subsidiaries of a Swedish aerospace company and an Italian heavy equipment manufacturer. Is Smith asserting all these companies are still muzzled by Federal law?

I learned that people don't sign up to work for a corporation in order to freely associate as a means of facilitating their political speech.

Not every corporation, certainly. But I'm sure the New York Times Corporation would qualify, as would Michael Moore's production company. What about Regnery Publishing, a conservative press? The fact that not all corporations wish to participate in political speech does not prevent other corporations from doing so.

I appreciate Alito's response. It was much needed, on the spot fact-checking, but subtle enough not to cause a disturbance.

I oppose Obama deeply, but you only make yourself a fool by saying this.

First let’s pretend for the sake of argument that you are right about him being a dual citizens; where does the constitution state that a person cannot be a duel citizen and be president? Psst, it doesn’t. and it would have been easy to put that in. It could have said the president must be a “natural born citizen of the united states and a citizen of only the United States.”

But the fundamental flaw in your argument is the belief that the laws of another nation can abrogate the constitutional rights of an American citizen. He was born in the United States. He was entitled under the 14th A to be a citizen of the United States by that birth. No foreign law, which we in the United States have no control over and Mr. Obama had control over, can deprive him of that birthright.

Look I get it. Obama is such a terrible president it is tempting to find some kind of legal trick that might end this nightmare. I am actually at the point where I would prefer a President Biden, imagine that. But the law is the law. Liberals love to bend the law to reach a certain result, but that is not something we should emulate. Because this time it happens to obama, but next time it could happen to yours, or someone you support.

Oh, and if you really want to get technical, there are no citizens in England. They are all technically called subjects.

How did we get to a point where liberals think the Nazis have more rights than Exxon?

When the Constitution was written, only human beings were persons. Businesses were not separate from the proprietors who owned them. Partnerships were not separate from the partners who owned them. Even joint-stock companies were not separate entities from the stockholders who owned them. Had Exxon existed back then, its point of view would have been voiced by its stockholders.

If Exxon's stockholders decided to parade through Skokie, I'm sure the ACLU would support them.

First, Chemerinsky says this is about spending. They were trying to buy ad space to promote their political speech. So, anyone who says this case was about spending is beign disingenous and dishonest.

I mean if we passed a law forbidding the purchase of ink and paper, would we call that a limitation on spending, or ABROGATION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

The dishonesty continues:

> But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents.

Bullsh--. Everyone knows the most common conservative definition of judicial activism is failing to be true to the constitution.

> To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome.

Bullsh-- again.

Then, amazingly he quotes from a Bush using that classic definion of judicial activism and still doesn’t get it.

> President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "[j]udicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public."

Seriously, when I read crap like that, I wonder if the guy even knows a conservative.

> The act was intended to prevent the enormous wealth of corporations from distorting elections

In other words, the government is establishing an anti-corporate orthodoxy, in direct violation of the constitution. See my comments above, especially my citation of Jackson.

> For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government.

If he thinks this means conservatives are opposed to judicial review, he is high.

> For decades, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires that courts protect rights only if they are stated in the text of the Constitution or were clearly intended by the document's framers.

True. and what do you know, there it is, in the very first amendment.

> But there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the framers of the 1st Amendment meant to protect the rights of corporations to spend money in election campaigns.

Right corporations are not real persons. Therefore they have no right to speak freely. So, I suppose then that NYT v. Sullivan was incorrectly decided? I mean, the NYT Company is a corporation, you know. So with no right to speak, they have no right to any protection under the laws relating to defamation.

And notice once again he pretends this is about spending money.

> Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election.

No, they did not. They decided on the procedures used.

> that the real judicial activism today is from the right.

In which you demonstrate your deepest hypocrisy here. I mean, I thought you were okay with judicial activism. So how can you criticize this decision? By logic, whatever they say is right, so it is right because they said it. of course most of us find that view servile, but that is the view you expound, isn’t it?

First, Chemerinsky says this is about spending. They were trying to buy ad space to promote their political speech. So, anyone who says this case was about spending is beign disingenous and dishonest.

I mean if we passed a law forbidding the purchase of ink and paper, would we call that a limitation on spending, or ABROGATION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

The dishonesty continues:

> But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents.

Bullsh--. Everyone knows the most common conservative definition of judicial activism is failing to be true to the constitution.

> To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome.

Bullsh-- again.

Then, amazingly he quotes from a Bush using that classic definion of judicial activism and still doesn’t get it.

> President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "[j]udicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public."

Seriously, when I read crap like that, I wonder if the guy even knows a conservative.

> The act was intended to prevent the enormous wealth of corporations from distorting elections

In other words, the government is establishing an anti-corporate orthodoxy, in direct violation of the constitution. See my comments above, especially my citation of Jackson.

> For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government.

If he thinks this means conservatives are opposed to judicial review, he is high.

FLS

> When the Constitution was written, only human beings were persons. Businesses were not separate from the proprietors who owned them.

That is not true.

Was Harvard university purely a sole proprietorship of the man it was named for? Um, no.

But then again, I am pretty sure you never went to Harvard, so many that is not so obvious.

But I love this argument. So you are prepared to say that NYT v. Sullivan was wrongly decided? That the NAACP’s “Ink fund”, which was led by Thurgood Marshall when they brought Brown v. Board of Education, has no speech rights?

By the way, do you care to explain why Michael Moore was allowed to create and promote “Fahrenheit 9-11”, but these people were forbidden to do the same for “Hillary: The Movie”? Liberals want to talk about everything in the Citizens United litigation except the facts of the case, because those facts are devastating to their argument.

An organization that does nothing but speak, was silenced, when it dared to talk about an election. It is shameful that even a single liberal supports that outcome.

sorry for the repeat. here is the part that was supposed to be new. and unfortunately right now i can't delete the repeating part:

FLS

> When the Constitution was written, only human beings were persons. Businesses were not separate from the proprietors who owned them.

That is not true.

Was Harvard university purely a sole proprietorship of the man it was named for? Um, no.

But then again, I am pretty sure you never went to Harvard, so many that is not so obvious.

But I love this argument. So you are prepared to say that NYT v. Sullivan was wrongly decided? That the NAACP’s “Ink fund”, which was led by Thurgood Marshall when they brought Brown v. Board of Education, has no speech rights?

By the way, do you care to explain why Michael Moore was allowed to create and promote “Fahrenheit 9-11”, but these people were forbidden to do the same for “Hillary: The Movie”? Liberals want to talk about everything in the Citizens United litigation except the facts of the case, because those facts are devastating to their argument.

An organization that does nothing but speak, was silenced, when it dared to talk about an election. It is shameful that even a single liberal supports that outcome.

> The ruling in Citizens United was hardly limited to the facts of the case.

Yeah, no sh-- it wasn't. because when you talk about the first amendment, if a law unconstitutionally suppresses even one person, the entire law becomes unconstitutional. That is black letter law, you idjit.

Once again your status as only a former student, and not actually a lawyer, becomes apparent.

Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to explain the difference between freedom of the press (Sullivan) and freedom of speech (Exx^H^H^H Citizens United). Perhaps Aaron could read a good ConLaw hornbook, like Chemerinsky's.

You are absolutely wrong. The reason that the grandfather clause exists IS because the first Presidents were born British Subjects A2S1C5 (or a citizen at the...). It allows the founders of the country, although born British subjects, to be eligible, since they fought for the revolution. Anyone born after 1787 must not, at birth, owe any allegiance to a foreign power-- it's a National Security provision. As for Aaron, who propagates the usual Obama apologist talking points, Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is a term of art that was very well known at the time and did not need definition (they didn't define Bill of Attainder either). We are not Subjects, we are CITIZENS - huge difference. Our rights of the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights derived from the creator-- It's Natural Law. which is codified as our common law inUSC A1S8C10 (law of nations). According to Natural Law the citizenship laws of other nations certainly do have an affect on our laws (See Perkins v. Elg 1929). As a matter of fact Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition of NBC is NOT IN THE USConstitution (so it is certaianly not a "Born" citizen of the 14 Amendment, which was in 1866. A child born of American Citizens abroad is considered an American Citizen AND a Citizen of that birth country if they consider him/her so, so why wouldn't it be true in reverse? Natural born citizens are Born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents. It is the unification of Blood and Soil that makes a child naturally only a US Citizen, unencombered by any foreign allegiances.

When the Constitution was written, only human beings were persons. Businesses were not separate from the proprietors who owned them. Partnerships were not separate from the partners who owned them. Even joint-stock companies were not separate entities from the stockholders who owned them.

Fail: "The earliest recognized corporations were boroughs, universities, and ecclesiastical orders and by the fifteenth century the distinctiveness of the corporation from its members was recognized. Business enterprises were first created as corporations in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Thus the East India Company [1600], the Royal African Company [1660], and the Hudson Bay Company [1670] were incorporated by charter."--The Oxford Companion to Law, ed. D.M. Walker (1980), s.v. "Corporation" (dates interpolated).

I've always wondered if "FLS" meant that you were once a student and are now a lawyer--or if you washed out. Now we know.

Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to explain the difference between freedom of the press (Sullivan) and freedom of speech (Exx^H^H^H Citizens United). Perhaps Aaron could read a good ConLaw hornbook, like Chemerinsky's.

Even if NYT v. Sullivan relied on freedom of the press (I'm assuming you have some silly argument like "press" = "corporations"), it was overturned a state libel, thus could only be possible if corporations are also protected by the 14th Amendment, to provide incorporation.

> Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to explain the difference between freedom of the press (Sullivan) and freedom of speech

According to the FEC, there is no difference. A corporation was as much banned from publishing a book as making an ad.

> Perhaps Aaron could read a good ConLaw hornbook, like Chemerinsky's.

Yeah, one I literally never heard of before today. And written by a guy who doesn’t pay enough attention to the other side to accurately reflect their views. His entire stupid editorial was a massive straw man. And the only question is whether he realized he was constructing and destroying a straw man as he did it.

Mick

You just argued against a claim I didn’t make. I said that you can be a natural born citizen of America, AND a natural born subject of England. The grandfathering of our revolutionary founders has nothing to do with that issue.

> As for Aaron, who propagates the usual Obama apologist talking points

Which is funny, because anyone who pays attention knows that I think Obama is one of our worst presidents ever. Although to be fair, that might merely reflect a lack of understanding of how bad carter really was. I mean I was 8 when he left office, after all. But if I don’t pretend he is constitutionally ineligible to be president, I guess I am his apologist.

> We are not Subjects, we are CITIZENS - huge difference.

That is correct. So even the natural born citizenship clause means that you can’t be a citizen of another country at birth, then Obama allegedly being a subject of England doesn’t count. A subject is not a citizen.

> According to Natural Law the citizenship laws of other nations certainly do have an affect on our laws (See Perkins v. Elg 1929).

According to natural law, government derives its legitimacy by consent of the governed. Now you say that Britain has the right to cancel or reduce Obama’s rights as an American. But what has Obama ever done to consent to their rule over his life?

> As a matter of fact Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition of NBC is NOT IN THE United States Constitution

They can say what they want, but I can read the 14th amendment. And since you are playing junior lawyer here, I will point out that this statement in minor is dictum and therefore is as relevant as an op-ed.

> A child born of American Citizens abroad is considered an American Citizen AND a Citizen of that birth country if they consider him/her so

And such an American would not be allowed to be president.

Anyway, you still don’t address two points. One, it is never stated in the constitution that a natural born citizen of America cannot simultaneously, at birth be the citizen of another country.

Second, you ignore the fact that the constitution does define natural born citizenship. Amendment 14. It says all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, with the only exception being foreign diplomats and the like.

As I said, I completely get where the sentiment comes from. I would love nothing more for you guys to turn out to be right. But you are wrong.

Nomilk

> I've always wondered if "FLS" meant that you were once a student and are now a lawyer--or if you washed out. Now we know.

Indeed. Apparently he thought Harvard law school was a sole proprietorship. lol

Well, talking about the press clause does point up an interesting point. I have long said that while viscerally television and movies seem like speech, because there is a lot of talking involved, underneath the surface, it much more resembles the press as it was understood in 1789. Speech, in 1789 was just talking; it was free, and cheap, and limited by how far your voice could carry. By comparison, in 1789 press cost money and very often required a business organization and features persons speaking not as individuals but as one entity. Whatever the organization under the New York World was, for instance, the paper spoke as a collective whole.

So when you think of the press clause, it is much easier to understand why money is vital to expression. You can’t express in printed word without money, and you can’t express yourself TV or in movies without spending money. And just as the founders understood that the freedom of the press didn’t just apply to the lone pamphleteer, it also applied to entire groups of people, including employees and even stockholders who might not agree in all of the particulars with the message being sent. The more we use freedom of the press as our template for understanding modern freedom of expression, the better off we are.

Aaron, You are so wrong and disengenuous that it is laughable. First no where in the 14A does it say Natural Born.

This statement by you is such tortured logic that it is comical

"That is correct. So even the natural born citizenship clause means that you can’t be a citizen of another country at birth, then Obama allegedly being a subject of England doesn’t count. A subject is not a citizen."

So you admit I am correct, but because Britain calls the participants of it's society "Subjects" and not "Citizen" I am wrong? That's pretty funny. Either way, he owed allegiance to Britain at birth, and that disqualifies him.

There are 4 cases that directly quote Vattel's Law of Nations in dicta. There is NO case that is on point relating to A2S1C4,5 as it relates to the POTUS. (The Venus, 1827, Dred Scott 1854, Minor v. Happersett 1873, and Wong Kim Ark 1898). No SCOTUS CASE describes a Natural Born Citizen as any less than Born in the US to Citizen PARENTS--- NONE. Then you can add the Perkins v. Elg 1929 case, which described all 3 types of citizenship. Miss. Elg and Steinkauler born of Naturalized US Citizen Parents were deemed NBCs, and Steinkauler was said to be able to be POTUS some day. Mr. Bohn, born of alien parents was deemed "American Citizen". The preponderance of the evidence going back to 40 years after Ratification of the USC points to NBC as Born in the US to Citizen PARENTS. Nothing points to anything less. NOTHING. If you are a lawyer you must not be very good, judging by your weak attempts here.

"Second, you ignore the fact that the constitution does define natural born citizenship. Amendment 14. It says all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, with the only exception being foreign diplomats and the like."

Right, and even though the jurisdictional clause was clouded by Wong Kim Ark, it still doesn't say "Natural Born Citizen".

First, you still can’t prove that a person can’t be a natural born American citizen and a citizen of another country at birth.

> because Britain calls the participants of it's society "Subjects" and not "Citizen" I am wrong?

You are the one talking about technicalities. I am just throwing it back in your face. If you cay that being a citizen of another country makes it impossible for you to be a natural born citizen of the United States, then I will point out that even by your argument he was not a citizen of England.

> There are 4 cases that directly quote Vattel's Law of Nations in dicta. There is NO case that is on point relating to A2S1C4,5 as it relates to the POTUS. (The Venus, 1827, Dred Scott 1854, Minor v. Happersett 1873, and Wong Kim Ark 1898).

Jesus H. Christ you are an idiot. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is directly on point and goes against you. In that case, they held that despite the fact that both of Mr. Ark’s parents were “aliens” and “and subjects of the Emperor of China” he was found to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth: in other words, a natural born citizen.

And indeed, this is what the court says about the English understanding of “natural born subjects”:

> “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

So if dicta controls in your mind, then a decision on the merits doubly so. And the only exceptions are the children of diplomats and foreign enemies.

And I am stunned you have the gonads to cite Dredd Scott, as though it was not a thoroughly discredited decision. That decision held that no black person could be a citizen, not even Crispus Attucks, could be a citizen. DS is not good law. DS is a constitutional nullity.

> Right, and even though the jurisdictional clause was clouded by Wong Kim Ark, it still doesn't say "Natural Born Citizen".

Right, so you can be a citizen by birth, but not a natural born citizen. What a load of crap.

What's even more irritating is that Alito knew full well that corporations did not have a legal personality separate from its stockholders until 1844, more than a half-century after the Constitution was ratified. Here's a quote from his opinion in CARDEN V. ARKOMA ASSOCS., 494 U. S. 185 (1990).

A corporation is the paradigmatic artificial "person," and the Court has considered its proper characterization under the diversity statute on more than one occasion—not always reaching the same conclusion. Initially, we held that a corporation "is certainly not a citizen," so that to determine the existence of diversity jurisdiction the Court must "look to the character of the individuals who compose [it]." Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61, 86, 91-92, 3 L.Ed. 38 (1809). We overruled Deveaux 35 years later in Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), which held that a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person."

First off, Alinskian tactics you display give away the fact that you are not who you present to be. You are one of the many "Ellie light" Bridgetenders seeking to ridicule and Obfuscate any time you find dissent against your dear leader.

You Say:"Jesus H. Christ you are an idiot. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is directly on point and goes against you. In that case, they held that despite the fact that both of Mr. Ark’s parents were “aliens” and “and subjects of the Emperor of China” he was found to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth: in other words, a natural born citizen."

Well, it certainly was not on point, as Wong was not running for POTUS, so who are you kidding? That case was a very narrowly defined case about the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens. The Chinese parents had set up domicile, and carried on business, but were unable to naturalize due to the Chines Exclusionary Acts. Justice Gray compared them to Blacks born in the US to Slaves who were unable to Naturalize. The ruling was that Wong, born in the US to RESIDENT ALIENS was a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen. You probably really aren't a lawyer are you? I pity your clients if so.

Wow, paranoid birther. Whoddathunk it. yes, you are right. I have been coming to this blog demonstrating right of center beliefs literally for years, all as part of the plan to cover up that obama is not a citizen. Tell me, do you think the illuminati are behind this? The free masons? How about the saucer people? *rolls eyes*

Personally I subscribe to the belief a la South Park that the conspiracy theory movement is really in fact part of a secret conspiracy to convince us that anyone is smart enough to pull off that kind of conspiracy.

> Well, it certainly was not on point, as Wong was not running for POTUS, so who are you kidding?

They were asking whether he was a citizen as a result of his birth. Which the court in Wong said was the same thing, and basic logic says is the same thing, too.

Seriously, can you find a single case where under either American or English law, where they said that a person was a citizen by virtue of birth, but not a naturally born citizen?

> That case was a very narrowly defined case about the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens.

Yes, two non-citizens had a son who was a natural born citizen. Of course that is irrelevant. *rolls eyes*

> Justice Gray compared them to Blacks born in the US to Slaves who were unable to Naturalize.

Um, no, he did not reaffirm that black people or slaves could not be naturalized. Where do you get this stuff?

> not a Natural Born Citizen.

They made no distinction between the terms. They cited case after case discussing the standard for determining who is a natural born citizen.

And all you do is discredit yourself as a loon when you say this. Our chance to get rid of obama is coming in 2012. Our chance to take back congress is this year. so rather than this silliness, make good arguments about the clusterf--- he is creating in Washington, D.C., and we will win this. Scott Brown didn’t have to be a birther to take back kennedy’s seat. You don’t need a magic bullet to stop obama. You just need the superior arguments, which the conservatives and tea partiers have.

And if you think NYT v. Sullivan was correctly decided would you care to explain how the NYT Company, a corporation, has the right to free expression and Citizens United does not?

Or for that matter why Disney could release and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, right around the election, with Moore explicitly stating that he hope to influence the election, but Hillary the Movie could not?

Sure you are! You are just another Obama Bridgetender. As far as the "Birther" thing goes, although it is certainly not definitive as to where he was born, I only go by the FACTS that are proveable and admitted. It doesn't matter WHERE he was born, could've been in the Whitehouse. He admitted that he was born a dual citizen of Britain, which disqualifies him.

Another tactic of the Obama bridgetender Brigade--- Burning the Strawman. No logic, or law says that a "Citizen by birth" is a Natural Born Citizen. Of course those born abroad to US Citizen Parents are US Citizens by birth, but are not NBCs because they were born abroad (like McCain, the other potential Usurper, as per the Nat. Act 1795). So you actually think that Mamacita from Mexico could swim across the border and drop a baby on US soil, and that child would be eligible to be POTUS, even though a child born of US Citizens abroad is not? Of Course you neglect to cite any SCOTUS Case that supports your assertion that Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US to CITIZEN PARENTS, I gave you 5. Wong was declared a "Citizen" by virtue of birth to resident domiciled aliens, so NO, you lose on that one, try again? You obviously did not read the case, because Gray certaionly does compare Wong to freed slaves. Another passage from the case asserted that the CITIZEN CHILD of an ALIEN had the same rights as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a CITIZEN.

You also say:"Right, so you can be a citizen by birth, but not a natural born citizen. What a load of crap."

Well yes, that is the result of WKA, and is also discussed in Perkins v. Elg 1929, where Mr. Bohn, born of aliens in the US was deemed an "AMERICAN CITIZEN". You're not to good at this are you? WHERE is that SCOTUS case that says that anything less than Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents is a Natural Born Citizen? There isn't one

> No logic, or law says that a "Citizen by birth" is a Natural Born Citizen.

Right. He was a citizen as the result of his birth, which was natural, but he is not a naturally born citizen. That is so illogical!

Logic? You are the one claiming that a citizen can be deprived of his rights by the operation of a foreign nation’s law he didn’t consent to.

Take this scenario. Imagine Germany passed a law tomorrow saying that all people anywhere in the world who had even a drop of German blood, were citizens of germany, automatically. Even if they had lived in another country for generations. Even if their family had renounced their german citizenship. So then would you say that an American of german descent cannot be president because Germany unilaterally passed this law? That newborn german americans are suddenly not natural born citizens?

Its madness.

> Of course those born abroad to US Citizen Parents are US Citizens by birth, but are not NBCs because they were born abroad (like McCain, the other potential Usurper, as per the Nat. Act 1795).

Well, at least you are bipartisan. And my understanding is that McCain was born on United States territory in the canal region.

> So you actually think that Mamacita from Mexico could swim across the border and drop a baby on US soil, and that child would be eligible to be POTUS...?

Yes, actually. The qualifications for president are frighteningly low. I mean my God, but for the national inquirer, John Edwards might have been president. Don’t that make you pee your pants?

> I put it to you, Mick -- either you're a leftist plant, or you're a hapless dupe of those who are.

Exactly! I mean look, assuming he is honest and not a plant, then we almost certainly agree that Obama is a horrible, horrible president. But the democratic strategy is precisely to use this birther crap to divide his opposition.

I wish the birthers were right. I really do. Yes, I am actually ready to say I would prefer even a president Biden to a president Obama. That’s a real evolution for me. I used to jokingly say that Biden’s secret service code name as “assassination insurance.” But as ridiculous as biden is, I think he’d almost have to be better. But this birther fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Its escapism. What we need to do is concentrate on real arguments and tactics to beat this man.

What's even more irritating is that Alito knew full well that corporations did not have a legal personality separate from its stockholders until 1844, more than a half-century after the Constitution was ratified. Here's a quote from his opinion in CARDEN V. ARKOMA ASSOCS., 494 U. S. 185 (1990).

(1) Scalia, not Alito, wrote the opinion in Carden.

(2) You're confusing the general principle of separate legal personality of corporations, which, there is no doubt, was a principle at common law well before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, with the adjudication of the precise definition of "citizenship" in the statutes that grant jurisdiction to the federal courts.

Your argument is so full of silly strawman arguments by Obama Bridgetenders many times, so there is no doubt who you really are.

This statement for example:"Logic? You are the one claiming that a citizen can be deprived of his rights by the operation of a foreign nation’s law he didn’t consent to."

Natural Born Citizenship is a National security requirement, not a right. There is NO RIGHT to be POTUS. There is also a requirement that the POTUS be 35 years old, does that discriminate against 34 year olds?

And of course you are wrong again (it's a habit). about MCain (and use the well worn Obama Bridgetender phrase "it is my understanding"). Whether he was born on a military base abroad doesn't matter. Read the Naturalization Act of 1795.

You and your buddy Ben (TIE) must not be very good lawyers if you are indeed lawyers, but you are certainly Obama Bridgetenders. I am certainly not a "Birther", although there is no actual proof of place of birth. I focus on what is factual and admitted, and you obfuscate and deny, with no real facts, only insult, which is typical. WKA is the case that Obama will try to use when the time comes, but he will fail, since that case only says that Wong is a Citizen. Now WHERE is that SCOTUS Case that you were going to show to prove your case? You have NONE.

Here is where Obama himself admits that his citizenship was "governed" by Great Britain. Look down below the big green distarting COLB under Factcheck.It says:“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Notice it says "His Kenyan Citizenship", and that his CITIZENSHIP was "GOVERNED" by Britain. This is HIS admitssion, and he is a Constitutional scholar. So apparently foreign citizenship laws do apply here. We also don't know whether Obama traveled to Pakistan (an admitted trip) as an 18 year old, on a British passport. It would have certainly been easier to travel there to a former Commonwealth, under a British passport, but we are not allowed to know these things. If he did receive a British passport then, he may STILL be a British citizen.

> Natural Born Citizenship is a National security requirement, not a right.

Bullsh--. Its your birthright to be eligible for president. Its interesting to see how un-American the birther argument gets as we go along.

> There is also a requirement that the POTUS be 35 years old, does that discriminate against 34 year olds?

Yes, it does. The constitution doesn’t outlaw all discrimination and indeed, I didn’t talk anything about discrimination here. So I don’t know where you are going with that.

> And of course you are wrong again (it's a habit). about MCain (and use the well worn Obama Bridgetender phrase "it is my understanding"). Whether he was born on a military base abroad doesn't matter.

A military base is American territory. It most certainly does matter. But I love the logic. McCain is the product of three generations of patriots who served their country with honor. And the reward is to strip their children of the right to be president.

> You and your buddy Ben (TIE) must not be very good lawyers

We never met, we just agree you are a doofus who is hurting your own cause.

> with no real facts

Well, the issue is law, not facts. And you in fact know nothing about the law.

> Now WHERE is that SCOTUS Case that you were going to show to prove your case?

Wong. Read the decision again. They cited cases from England on the subject of who counts as a natural born subject to reach their conclusion about what citizenship by birth meant.

Anyway, so your position, if I understand it, is that obama is a citizen due to birth, but not a natural born citizen.

Well, he is obviously a “born citizen,” so I guess what you must be saying is, obama is an “unnaturally born citizen.” *rolls eyes*

You’re an idiot. What you are presenting as Obama’s words aren’t even his words. They are fact check’s words. And I will show in a moment you misinterpreted them. big surprise.

And even if they were his words, if you haven’t noticed, our president doesn’t know JS about the constitution. I mean I might as well cite the movie Double Jeopardy as a constitutional authority.

> Notice it says "His Kenyan Citizenship", and that his CITIZENSHIP was "GOVERNED" by Britain.

Yes, as in it might make him simultaneously a citizen of Kenya. I haven’t denied that because frankly I don’t know. But I do deny the assertion that your citizenship as an American can be influenced by the laws of a foreign country. Notice you didn’t even answer my germany hypothetical, because you know how it lays bear how dangerous and un-American your approach is.

"You're confusing the general principle of separate legal personality of corporations, which, there is no doubt, was a principle at common law well before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, with the adjudication of the precise definition of "citizenship" in the statutes that grant jurisdiction to the federal courts."

I got the impression from the little I read of the ruling, that this issue of citizenship/personhood isn't relevant. That the ruling was about the speech, not the speaker. And that the first amendment protected the speech without regard to the source. That it was the speech that was protected. Period.

And also that Thomas dissented from the majority opinion, that it didn't go far enough because the majority opinion still allowed restrictions on speech according to who was speaking, specifically in the case of foreign sources.

I think that Thomas is probably right, but I also think that the fact he included this dissent is a strong indication that the ruling really doesn't give rights to foreign sources that can't be limited by existing laws or new legislation.

Thomas' dissent was actually about the disclosure requirement. He felt that this suppressed speech. and frankly he has a point.

i mean there are cases like NAACP v. Alabama. I am going to confess I don’t remember which year this case came out. I think it was the 1958 version. And that’s important because, well there are alot of cases called NAACP v. Alabama. Think about it.

But whatever year it was, this case dealt with the concept of associative privacy. Alabama, as part of their campaign to keep black people down, wanted a full list of all of the members of the NAACP, supposedly to check for communists. but we know what would really have happened if that list was made public. The Supreme Court said not just no, but "hell no." I mean it. that was the whole opinion. “Hell no.”

(okay, not really, but they did declare that the NAACP didn’t have to disclose its member list).

Thomas doesn't talk about that in the dissent, but cites the nastiness of anti-proposition-8 advocates in California. which is interesting because not too long ago, the Supreme Court stepped in an prevented the District Court from airing the proposition 8 trial on youtube, precisely because of fears of retaliation against the pro-proposition-8 side.

I personally disagree with Thomas. I say let everyone talk, but disclose, disclose, disclose. But Thomas does have a point.

separate legal personality of corporations, which, there is no doubt, was a principle at common law well before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution,

Bullshit.

The doctrine of separate legal personality of corporations was not established in England till 1897, over a century after our Constitution was ratified. Salomon v. A Salomon and Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22.

At the time of the Framers, proto-corporations were no more than the sum of their stockholders -- who were perfectly capable of speaking for them. The doctrine of separate legal personality for corporations took over a century to evolve. Letson gave the first inkling that a proto-corporation was anything other than the set of its stockholders.

(1) Scalia, not Alito, wrote the opinion in Carden.

Yeah, I meant Scalia. He's the guy who obviously knew better. I am doing this in my free time.

Mick -- When Obama was a young man, minors who were dual nationals had to elect one nationality at the age of majority. An 18 year old likely could still travel on a Kenyan or British non-resident passport, if the age of majority was considered to be 21.

"Bullsh--. Its your birthright to be eligible for president. Its interesting to see how un-American the birther argument gets as we go along."

No, you have to be eligible as a Natural Born Citizen, be 34 years old and be 14 years resident. There is No "right" to be eligible to be POTUS

You say,"A military base is American territory. It most certainly does matter. But I love the logic. McCain is the product of three generations of patriots who served their country with honor. And the reward is to strip their children of the right to be president."

Again, there is no "right" to be POTUS, you need to qualify. The Naturalization Act of 1795 struck the words Natural Born from the Act of 1790. repealing the Act of 1790 and making the children born abroad of US Citizen military personell "Citizens", not Natural Born Citizens. Probably because they realized that they had ammended the constitution (by changing the meaning of Natural Born Citizen)w/o the ammendment process.

You say"And even if they were his words, if you haven’t noticed, our president doesn’t know JS about the constitution. I mean I might as well cite the movie Double Jeopardy as a constitutional authority."

He did say those words, they were put out by his campaign website. Of course he knows about the USC, he was a Constitutional Scholar (where have you been??!!). He also knows full well that he doesn't qualify. That's why he floated the father story. To get it before the public and see if they would catch him.

You say," But I do deny the assertion that your citizenship as an American can be influenced by the laws of a foreign country. Notice you didn’t even answer my germany hypothetical, because you know how it lays bear how dangerous and un-American your approach is."

And I say that he says himself that the citizenship laws of other countries matters as evidenced by Fight the Smears admissions. As far as the Germany thing, that is the silly Obama Bridgetender Strawman. As long as a child is born on US Soil to Citizen Parents, there can be no foreign claims to allegiance, that's natural law (Vattel, A1S8C10).So far I have given a multitude of Facts, Laws, Amendments, Naturalization Laws, etc. to prove my point. You give nothing but insult, silly strawmwn, and denial, which is typical of Obam Bridgetenders, leaving no doubt what you are. I hope you are not really a lawyer. Where is that SCOTUS case that says a NBC is any less than Born in the US to US Citizen PARENTS?

"Mick -- When Obama was a young man, minors who were dual nationals had to elect one nationality at the age of majority. An 18 year old likely could still travel on a Kenyan or British non-resident passport, if the age of majority was considered to be 21"

You are correct, I meant to say when he was 21 (it was after undergrad). What you said illustrates the concept of NBC though. Untill the age of 21, he owed allegiance to 2 foreign powers, making him ineligible as a Natural Born Citizen, which would be born with NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE.